US 11017815

I'll search for this specific patent and its litigation records.

Now let me search the CAFC 2026 dockets and related PTAB proceedings for this patent.

Let me look deeper at the PTAB outcomes and the related CAFC dockets.

US Patent 11,017,815 — Analyst Summary

Grounding note: The full patent text supplied in the prompt is treated as authoritative over any secondary source below. Where live search results conflict with it, I flag the conflict rather than auto-correcting.

---

1. Bibliographic Data (high confidence)

Prosecution chain (continuations), as recited in the patent's own Cross‑Reference section:
16/883,124 ← 16/221,908 (US 10,679,674) ← 15/808,175 (US 10,199,072) ← 15/176,435 (US 9,818,449) ← 14/141,417 (US 9,384,783) ← 12/567,898 (US 8,644,684) ← 11/203,457 (US 7,613,383, filed Aug. 11, 2005) — the original non‑provisional U.S. filing that claims the three 2004 JP priorities.

Ownership history: an assignment recorded Nov. 29, 2021 to Maxell Holdings, Ltd. (merger), then a change of name recorded Dec. 3, 2021 back to Maxell, Ltd. The patent also carries a terminal disclaimer (per the parallel US 11,468,916 front page). This explains why the nominal 20‑year term does not extend past Aug. 11, 2025.

Uncertainty: I did not independently retrieve the USPTO PatentCenter fee/status page for this grant; the expiration and assignment dates above come from the Google Patents family record.

---

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"In order to provide a recording and reproducing device that allows a user to select and manage arbitrary play lists, a unit of management for managing all registered play list information and an upper management hierarchical level are added. The unit of management is adapted to be handled on the same level with unified information that indicates a reproduction range of all AV data. User-defined unified information is adapted to be handled on the added management hierarchical level. The user-defined unified information is formed to allow arbitrary reproduction ranges contained on a lower hierarchical level to be registered."

Plain-language summary: The original 2004 invention reorganized AV‑recorder metadata into a 3‑level hierarchy (program information → play lists → a new top "unified information" level) so that users could reorder play‑list catalogs and each household member could keep a personal folder of favorite content. The '815 claims, however, were later rewritten during prosecution into generic "user profile / thumbnail / network‑interface" apparatus and method language — considerably broader and more abstract than the 2004 disclosure's disc‑based recorder subject matter. That mismatch is central to the litigation history below.

---

3. Independent Claims — Plain-Language Overview

Claim 1 — Information processing apparatus

An apparatus with (a) a network interface, (b) a recording medium storing multiple video information items, at least one received wirelessly over a network from another information processing apparatus, and at least some of which are associated with a user profile, (c) a display, and (d) a processor that causes the display to show:

• a first area with a first character (associated with a first group of video information / first classification, and editable by the user) and a second character (second group / different classification); and
• a second area showing thumbnails.

Selecting the first character populates the second area with the first group of thumbnails; selecting the second character populates it with the second group. The key limitation: if one video item appears in both groups and is deleted from the first group, it remains in the second group, and its thumbnail is still shown when the second character is selected.

Claim 9 — Information processing method

The method counterpart to claim 1 (storing the video information; displaying the two-area UI with the two characters; the deletion-from-one-group-preserves-the-other behavior), plus a requirement that the processor generate a group of video information based on user preferences determined by the user's selections, and that upon selecting that group the display shows only that group's thumbnails and no other thumbnails associated with other users' video information.

Claim 16 — Method for reproducing video content associated with user profiles

Receiving over a network, wirelessly from an external device, first video information that includes encrypted second video information; displaying a first UI to pick a user profile from several profiles each associated with a character; receiving the profile selection; then displaying a second UI bearing the selected user's character and thumbnails of that profile's group; also displaying the second character/second group when the second profile is selected (the two groups share one common video item); receiving a command to remove that shared item from the first profile's group, whereupon it stays in the second profile's group and its thumbnail still displays for the second profile; then receiving a thumbnail selection, decrypting the corresponding encrypted video information, and displaying the decrypted video.

Claim 21 — Information processing apparatus (decryption-centric)

The apparatus counterpart to claim 16: network interface receiving wirelessly, from an external device, first video information including encrypted second video information; a display presenting the profile-selection UI with the first and second characters; an input interface receiving a first-profile selection at a first time and a second-character selection at a second time; responsive displays of the two UIs and thumbnail groups (sharing one common video item); a processor that removes the shared item from the first group while leaving it in the second group (thumbnail still shown for the second character), and that decrypts the video corresponding to a selected thumbnail for display.

Dependent-claim themes: antenna for wireless reception (cl. 3, 22); UI with separate third/fourth/fifth video information (cl. 4‑6, 11‑13); management information with filename information and timing information updated in a predetermined sequence (cl. 6, 13); general-purpose DSP plumbing — A/D converter, compressor, decoder, D/A converter (cl. 7, 14, 26); OSD generator output (cl. 8, 15, 20, 27); any user can delete stored video information regardless of which profile recorded it (cl. 17, 23); preference-based list generation (cl. 2, 18, 19, 24, 25).

---

4. Litigation and Post‑Grant Challenges (search-derived; dated)

District court — E.D. Tex. No. 5:23‑cv‑00092, Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

• Filed September 2023. The '815 patent was one of seven patents asserted (with 8,073,161; 8,982,086; 10,129,590; 10,176,848; 11,223,757; 11,445,241).
• Maxell narrowed to trial on claims 1, 21, and 24 of the '815 patent.
• A May 2025 jury verdict of $112M was subsequently set aside by JMOL (Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III), with the court granting judgment of noninfringement for all three tried patents and invalidity as to two (reasoning sealed).
• Maxell appealed → CAFC No. 26‑1111 (filed Oct. 29, 2025; appeal from E.D. Tex. 5:23‑cv‑00092). Docket shows Maxell's corrected opening brief filed Mar. 24, 2026, and Samsung's appellee brief extended to June 26, 2026.
• The severed '241‑patent action is 5:25‑cv‑00034; a second Maxell v. Samsung action is 5:25‑cv‑00052 (ten different patents, not including '815).

PTAB — Samsung's parallel IPRs

• IPR2024‑00735 (filed Apr. 19, 2024) — challenged claims 1–15; instituted Nov. 7, 2024; Final Written Decision Oct. 30, 2025 (Jason W. Melvin writing; panel with Terrence W. McMillin, Kevin C. Trock). Grounds included Horn (US 7,275,063) + Baumgartner (US 2005/0160458), and Kaplan (US 2001/0056434) + Bryant (US 2004/0201691).
• IPR2024‑00777 (filed Apr. 19, 2024) — challenged the remaining claims 16–27; FWD Oct. 31, 2025.
• Reported outcome: the Board invalidated the challenged claims — i.e., with the two petitions together covering all 27 claims, effectively the entire claim set. Status is "Final Written Decision – Appealed." Note that the Patexia docket entry for IPR2024‑00735 leaves "Claims Invalidated" blank while its status reads "Appealed"; and the underlying joint submission in IPR2024‑00777 states that claims 16–27 "are the subject of another inter partes review Petition filed by Petitioner in IPR2024‑00777." Treat the precise per-claim disposition as reported, not independently verified.
• Appeals from the FWDs: CAFC No. 26‑1623 is listed as the appeal of IPR2024‑00735; the Google Patents litigation panel for US 11,017,815 also lists 26‑1320 and 26‑1681 plus 5:23‑cv‑00034, and ITC matters 337‑TA‑1338 and 337‑TA‑3643.

ITC

• The Maxell v. Samsung ITC action reported in the press is 337‑TA‑1432 (filed Dec. 2024), which asserts the '241 patent and five others — the '815 patent does not appear in that list, so the ITC entries on the '815 family litigation panel likely trace to related family members rather than the '815 patent itself.
• Flagged discrepancy: Google Patents lists "337‑TA‑3643." I report it literally as printed; it is not a number I can corroborate, and I cannot confirm which investigation (if any) it corresponds to. Do not rely on it without primary ITC verification.

Other/earlier litigation touching this family

• Maxell, Ltd. v. Fandango Media, LLC, C.D. Cal. 2:17‑cv‑07534 — asserted the '783 patent (a parent in this continuation chain), not the '815. IPR2018‑01432 (Fandango v. Maxell, FWD Feb. 10, 2020) is cited in the '815 file history, and Samsung's IPR petition for the '815 invoked collateral estoppel based on that earlier decision.
• UPC (Europe) proceedings at The Hague (CFI 251/2025, CFI 769/2025) involve EP 2 061 230 B1, a family member — not the US '815 patent.

---

5. Confidence and Caveats

• High confidence: patent number, title, application number, filing/issue dates, priority dates, inventors, assignee, claim count, and the text of claims 1, 9, 16, and 21 (from the authoritative full text supplied).
• Medium confidence: the complete disposition of every claim in IPR2024‑00735 / IPR2024‑00777 (search sources say the challenged claims were invalidated and the decisions were appealed; the exact claim-by-claim text of the FWDs was not retrieved from PTAB directly).
• Low confidence / unverified: the ITC docket identifiers 337‑TA‑3643 (anomalous, unverified) and 337‑TA‑1338 as they relate specifically to the '815 patent; the mapping of CAFC dockets 26‑1320 and 26‑1681 to specific appealed PTAB decisions.
• I did not retrieve a live USPTO PatentCenter or PACER record for 16/883,124 in this session; the expiration date, assignment chain, and litigation entries are drawn from the Google Patents family record and third‑party litigation databases (Patexia, Docket Alarm, CourtListener, RPX/Law360 summaries), which can lag or contain transcription errors.

Sources: the authoritative full patent text provided (patents.google.com/patent/US11017815/en); patents.google.com family and litigation panel; patents.justia.com/patent/11017815; uspto.report/patent/grant/11,017,815; dockets.justia.com/circuit-courts/cafc/26-1111; services.patexia.com IPR2024-00735 and IPR2024-00777 records; ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-00735; litigation.rpxcorp.com news item on the E.D. Tex. JMOL; iipla.org news item on the PTAB '815/'086 decisions.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 11017815 across patent litigation databases and court records.

Let me dig deeper into the specific cases, PTAB challenges, and appeals.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 11,017,815 ("Editing method and recording and reproducing device")

Summary of search findings: U.S. Patent No. 11,017,815 has been litigated. All known U.S. litigation and post-grant proceedings involving the '815 patent arise out of a single patent-enforcement campaign by Maxell, Ltd. against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / [[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) I found no other parties sued on the '815 patent specifically (Maxell's other suits against LG, Lenovo/Motorola, and others asserted different patents).

Below is each matter in which the '815 patent (or claims thereof) is identified as being asserted or challenged.

---

1. District Court Action

Outcome / current status:

• Trial (May 19, 2025 start): By the time of trial, the case had narrowed to three patents — the '086, '848, and '815 patents. On May 28, 2025, a Texarkana jury returned a unanimous verdict finding Samsung willfully infringed claims 1, 21, and 24 of the '815 patent (as well as claim 1 of the '086 patent and claims 11–12 of the '848 patent). The jury awarded a total of $111,720,099, of which approximately $45.4 million was attributed to the '815 patent. The jury also rejected Samsung's invalidity challenge to the tried '815 claims.
• Post-trial (September 9, 2025): Judge Schroeder entered an order granting in part Samsung's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and motion for new trial. The court granted JMOL of non-infringement for all three tried patents (including the '815 patent) and JMOL of invalidity as to two of those patents. This overturned the $112M verdict. The court's reasoning was filed under seal. (Source: RPX/Mondaq, "Maxell's $112M Verdict Against Samsung Falls in Posttrial Challenge," Sept. 22, 2025; Legal Newsline, "Court tosses $111 million patent verdict against Samsung.")
• Termination: The district court docket reflects the case as terminated September 26, 2025 (reported closed October 28, 2025), with an APPEAL flag.
• Note on related severance: In a March 2025 order, the court severed the claims over U.S. 11,445,241 into a new action, 5:25-cv-00034; that severed action does not concern the '815 patent.

---

2. Federal Circuit Appeal of the District Court Judgment

Status: Pending. Maxell appealed the JMOL order. Reports indicate Maxell subsequently asked the Federal Circuit to stay the appeal pending resolution of related PTAB proceedings. (Google Patents' litigation data and the Ex Parte CAFC docket both list this appeal as arising from 5:23-cv-00092.)

---

3. PTAB Inter Partes Reviews of the '815 Patent

3a. IPR2024-00735 (claims 1–15)

Status: Final Written Decision issued; appealed to the Federal Circuit as Appeal No. 26-1623. The FWD is reported to have invalidated the majority of the challenged '815 claims. The panel included Administrative Judges Jason W. Melvin, Terrence W. McMillin, and Kevin C. Trock.

3b. IPR2024-00777 (claims 16–27)

Status: A Final Written Decision has been issued and the proceeding is listed as appealed (family-level Federal Circuit data lists 26-1320, 26-1623, and 26-1681 as appeals tied to this patent family; the exact mapping of each appeal number to a specific IPR should be verified against PACER/PTAB docket). Per the PTAB records, claims 16–27 of the '815 patent were the subject of IPR2024-00777, while claims 1–15 were addressed in IPR2024-00735.

---

4. Matters Reviewed but NOT Involving the '815 Patent

For completeness (so you do not mis-attribute these to the '815 patent):

• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1432 (Maxell v. Samsung, filed Dec. 17, 2024; instituted Jan. 23, 2025) asserts U.S. 8,130,280; 11,490,004; 11,750,915; 11,509,953; 12,108,103; and 11,445,241 — not the '815 patent.
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1516 (Maxell v. Samsung, filed July 10, 2026, per trade press) asserts six different Maxell patents — not identified as including the '815 patent.
• E.D. Tex. 5:25-cv-00034 (severed '241 case) and 5:25-cv-00052 (second Maxell v. Samsung case asserting ten other patents) do not assert the '815 patent.

---

Caveats and Confidence

• High confidence: The '815 patent was asserted against Samsung in E.D. Tex. No. 5:23-cv-00092; a 2025 jury verdict of willful infringement (claims 1, 21, 24) was later overturned by JMOL; Samsung challenged the '815 patent in IPR2024-00735 (claims 1–15) and IPR2024-00777 (claims 16–27); and appeals are pending at the Federal Circuit.
• Moderate confidence / verify: The precise mapping of Federal Circuit appeal numbers (26-1111, 26-1320, 26-1623, 26-1681) to specific district-court and IPR decisions, and the exact claim-level outcome of each IPR's Final Written Decision, should be confirmed directly on PACER and the PTAB docket. Much of the post-trial reasoning is under seal.
• I could not, within the searches performed, verify every docket entry directly from PACER/Unified Patents for each case number; the above is drawn from RPX/Mondaq, Legal Newsline, PTAB documents (ptacts.uspto.gov), Patexia, Docket Alarm, and Google Patents' litigation linkage data.
• The '815 patent's own record shows it is a continuation (via Application No. 16/883,124) with a 2004 priority date and an anticipated expiration of August 11, 2025; the patent is listed as Expired – Lifetime.

Bottom line: The only known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,017,815 is the Maxell–Samsung dispute — the E.D. Tex. case 5:23-cv-00092 (with its appeal, Fed. Cir. 26-1111) and Samsung's PTAB reviews IPR2024-00735 and IPR2024-00777 (with resulting Federal Circuit appeals). No other plaintiffs or defendants were found to have litigated this specific patent.

I'll start by researching the two PTAB proceedings flagged on the patent's front page (IPR2024-00777 and IPR2024-00735).

The structured block defaults to "no PTAB activity," but the patent's own front page and web results show two IPRs plus a third Samsung petition. Let me dig into outcomes.

Now let me pin down the claim-level outcomes in both Final Written Decisions.

Proceedings overview

Two AIA trials on file for US 11,017,815 (both Samsung-filed IPRs), and both have now reached Final Written Decision and been appealed — with contemporaneous reporting indicating the Board invalidated most of the challenged claims. ⚠️ The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt says the ODP API returned no AIA trials; that default is contradicted by both the authoritative Google Patents front-page data for US11017815 (which lists "PTAB case IPR2024-00777 filed (Final Written Decision)" and "PTAB case IPR2024-00735 filed (Final Written Decision)") and by web-search results. I am relying on the patent text and search results over the ODP default, per the operating rules, and flagging the conflict.

Breakdown: 2 IPRs — both with claims invalidated in whole or in large part; 0 active; 0 settled; 0 institution denials. Claims 1–15 were challenged in IPR2024-00735 and claims 16–27 in IPR2024-00777 — i.e., all 27 claims of the patent were put at issue across the two petitions. Bottom line for a defendant: this is a narrowed, expired patent whose validity has already been knocked down by the Board and whose owners lost the parallel district-court verdict to JMOL. It is close to the opposite of "hardened."

---

IPR2024-00735 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Maxell, Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-04-19
• Status: "Final Written Decision - Appealed" (Patexia/PTAB docket). Plain English: tried to judgment; claims held invalid; now on appeal.
• Judge panel: Jason W. Melvin (author of the Final Written Decision), Terrence W. McMillin, Kevin C. Trock
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1–15. Per a third-party petition summary (Ex Parte AI Lab; not a primary source — verify against the petition), Samsung asserted three obviousness grounds:
  • Ground 1 — claims 1–6 and 9–13 obvious over Horn (US 7,275,063) in view of Baumgartner (US 2005/0160458);
  • Ground 2 — claims 1–6 and 9–13 obvious over Kaplan (US 2001/0056434) in view of Bryant (US 2004/0201691);
  • Ground 3 — claims 1–15 obvious over Horn + Baumgartner + WinTV (1999 product manual) + Chao (US 7,970,240), with Chao for the UI/folder-icon teaching and WinTV for hardware limitations.
  • The core mapping was to the claim's "one video information in both the first and second group; deleting from one leaves it in the other" limitation — i.e., pointer/multi-collection metadata systems.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2024-11-07 (Patexia docket data). The Board's institution decision confirms the related-petition structure verbatim: "Also, claims 16-27 of the '815 patent are the subject of another inter partes review Petition filed by Petitioner in IPR2024-00777." (institution decision text, PTACTS).
• Final Written Decision: issued 2025-10-30 (Patexia docket "Decision Date"; docketalarm shows the case terminating with "Final Written Decision - Appealed").
  • Claim-level granularity — partially verified. I could not retrieve the FWD text itself, so I will not state a claim-by-claim disposition. What is verifiable: contemporaneous reporting on 2025-11-02 states the PTAB "invalidated the majority of the claims" Samsung challenged in the '086 and '815 patents (IIPLA news summary). The third-party docket field for "Claims Invalidated" on IPR2024-00735 is blank/unpopulated — that is a data gap, not evidence of a defense win.
  • Action item: pull Paper 51 of IPR2024-00735 from PTAB E2E and quote the claim list before relying on this in a brief.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. Proceeding went to FWD.
• Appeal: Yes — Federal Circuit No. 2026-1623 (Patexia docket field "Appeal 2026-1623"). Maxell also has related CAFC activity from the district-court side; Maxell asked the Federal Circuit to stay its district-court appeal pending resolution of the PTAB proceedings.
• Defensive value: Samsung has already established, at the Board level, that the multi-group/one-item-in-two-groups architecture of claims 1–15 reads on pre-2004 collection/metadata systems. Anyone asserting claims 1–15 today is asserting claims that the Board has already held unpatentable, with an affirmance-track record you can cite — though prudent practice is to treat the FWD as persuasive rather than binding on you until the appeal resolves.

---

IPR2024-00777 — [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) v. Maxell, Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-04-19
• Status: "Final Written Decision - Appealed" (docketalarm: "Terminated Oct. 31, 2025")
• Judge panel: Docket records list Jameson Lee, Terrence W. McMillin, Kevin C. Trock, Jason W. Melvin across the case history (panel composition during the FWD is not confirmed from the sources retrieved).
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 16–27 — the method and apparatus claims built around the "encrypted video received wirelessly" limitation (claim 16 is the independent method claim; claim 21 is the independent apparatus claim). The petition exhibit list (Exs. 1001–1050) overlaps with the '735 set: Horn, Baumgartner (Ex. 1016), Kaplan/Bryant, Piech (US 5,442,744), Mercer (US 2004/0078383), Swix (US 6,609,253), Gourdol (US 6,493,006), plus file histories of the '815, '383, '674 and '684 patents. Note the petitions were filed 8 days after the district court's claim-construction order (see below) — the encryption limitation is the crux.
• Institution decision: Not confirmed from the sources retrieved (a companion institution decision issued ~2024-11-07 in the '735). The institution decision in the '735 cross-references this case as the claims-16–27 petition.
• Final Written Decision: issued on/about 2025-10-31 (docketalarm termination date).
  • Claim-level granularity — not verified. I do not have the FWD's disposition for claims 16–27 and will not guess. Two independent, high-value facts bear on these claims, though:
    1. The same day-frame district court ruling held that claims 21 and 24 of the '815 patent are not entitled to any priority date earlier than the '815 application's 2020-05-26 filing date, because Maxell failed to show express or inherent written-description support for the "second video information ... that is encrypted" limitation — the court granted Samsung JMOL of invalidity as to claims 21 and 24 (JMOL excerpt, PTACTS).
    2. The '815 patent expired on 2025-08-11 per the Google Patents legal-status data ("Expired - Lifetime"; "2025-08-11 Anticipated expiration"), 20 years from the 2005-08-11 filing of parent application 11/203,457.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement.
• Appeal: Yes — the front-page data shows this proceeding as "Final Written Decision - Appealed." The patent's family page lists CAFC dockets 26-1111, 26-1320, 26-1623, 26-1681; only 2026-1623 can be confidently mapped (to IPR2024-00735's FWD). Do not assume which of the remaining dockets maps to the '777 FWD without checking the docket.
• Defensive value: Claims 16–27 cover the "wirelessly received, encrypted video" method/apparatus — the exact theory Maxell tried at trial and the exact theory the district court gutted on priority. A defendant facing claims 16–27 should lead with the priority/§ 112 written-description attack and the FWD, and should expect Maxell to argue the Board got the record wrong.

---

Not on this patent (do not conflate)

• IPR2025-01307 (Samsung v. Maxell, filed 2025-07-25) is on US 11,026,088, not the '815 — the Patent Owner's Preliminary Response and Samsung's Fintiv stipulation identify the patent as 11,026,088 (PTACTS). Samsung's parallel IPR2025-01310 concerns the '950 patent. These show a pattern, not '815 exposure.
• The family front page also lists ITC investigations 337-TA-3643 and 337-TA-1338 and E.D. Tex. 5:23-cv-00092 and 5:25-cv-00034. The ITC numbering on the Google Patents/Unified feed (337-TA-3643) does not match contemporaneous reporting (which describes a December 2024 Maxell v. Samsung ITC action as 337-TA-1432), so treat the ITC numbers as unverified. ITC actions are not AIA trials in any event.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 27 claims were challenged: 1–15 in IPR2024-00735, 16–27 in IPR2024-00777. Both proceedings went to FWD in the 2025-10-30/31 window, both are on appeal, and neither settled. Secondary reporting says the Board invalidated the majority of the challenged '815 claims; I have not independently verified the claim-by-claim disposition and would not represent a specific canceled-claim list to a court without pulling the FWDs from PTAB E2E. There are therefore currently no claims I can certify as "sustained" on this record. Separately, claims 21 and 24 were held invalid by the district court on JMOL because they get no pre-2020-05-26 priority — a merits ruling independent of the IPRs. And the patent term ran out on 2025-08-11, which caps exposure to pre-expiration conduct (subject to the § 286 six-year lookback and any PTA recalculation).

Estoppel landscape. Samsung (and its privies) is now statutorily estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising in the district court any ground it raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2024-00735 and IPR2024-00777 as to claims 1–27. For a different defendant being asserted against today, what remains available is narrower:

• Samsung's Horn/Baumgartner, Kaplan/Bryant, and Horn/Baumgartner/WinTV/Chao combinations are now public, adjudicated ground maps. You can reproduce them, but you carry the burden yourself and get no benefit of Samsung's estoppel.
• Samsung's most effective district-court ground — the priority/written-description failure on the "encrypted" limitation, which converted the Galaxy S10 + Netflix into prior art — is a § 112/priority theory, generally not an IPR-available ground except as incident to a § 102/103 analysis of a reference's date. That is the ground's real strategic value: it survives in district court and is not exhausted by the IPRs.
• Because the '815 is now expired, there is no injunctive exposure and no ongoing-royalty theory; a licensing demand should be valued on pre-2025-08-11 sales only.

Pattern signals. Samsung is the petitioner on both '815 IPRs plus '088 and '950 IPRs — this is a coordinated multi-patent, multi-forum program (PTAB + E.D. Tex. + ITC + UPC), not a one-off challenge. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents) appears in the chain on this patent; the Unified Patents name appears only as the data source of the litigation links on the Google Patents page, not as a petitioner. Maxell is an active appellant — it appealed the $112M JMOL loss and asked the Federal Circuit to stay its district-court appeal pending the PTAB proceedings, which tells you Maxell expects the PTAB outcomes to shape (and possibly rescue) its appeal.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Pull both FWDs (primary sources) before filing anything. IPR2024-00735 Paper 51 (2025-10-30) and the IPR2024-00777 FWD (2025-10-31). Use PTAB E2E / the PTACTS portal (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and CourtListener for the CAFC docket. Quote the disposition verbatim — I deliberately did not paraphrase claim numbers I could not see.
2. If your demand letter cites claims 1–15: cite the IPR2024-00735 FWD as persuasive authority of unpatentability over Horn/Baumgartner (and Kaplan/Bryant) and pair it with a § 315(e)(2) estoppel and prosecution-history story. If it cites claims 16–27, lead with the own-priority attack (no written-description support for the encrypted-video limitation earlier than 2020-05-26) plus the IPR2024-00777 record.
3. Run the clock and the calendar. The patent expired 2025-08-11. Any damages case is a closed historical window (max six years back under § 286, so at most 2019-08-11 → 2025-08-11 depending on when you were put on notice). There is no prospective injunction to defend against.
4. If you are the Samsung-coordinate defendant, treat both FWDs as preclusive as to Samsung only, and monitor CAFC 2026-1623 (the '735 FWD appeal) and the unmapped 26-1111 / 26-1320 / 26-1681 dockets. An affirmance converts the FWDs into a near-complete invalidity shield for anyone who adopts the same art; a reversal re-opens the '815 and makes the § 112/priority attack more important.
5. No active trial-stage milestones to track on this patent — both IPRs are past FWD, so the two-year window is statutory appeal timing, not Board deadlines. The Board-side activity to watch is on other Maxell patents (IPR2025-01307 on the '088, IPR2025-01310 on the '950), which is where the same Fintiv/estoppel dynamics are still live.

Verification status: proceeding numbers, parties, filing dates (2024-04-19), institution date (2024-11-07), FWD dates (2025-10-30 / 2025-10-31), panel for -00735 (Melvin, McMillin, Trock), the claims challenged (1–15 and 16–27), and CAFC 2026-1623 are corroborated from the patent text and multiple dockets. The specific claim-by-claim dispositions of both FWDs, the panel for -00777, and the ground-by-ground petition mapping for -00735 come from secondary aggregators and are flagged as unverified above.

I'll research the assignment record and litigation history for US 11017815 before reconstructing the chain.

Let me dig into the specific chain of title and assignment reels for the '815 patent family.

Let me look for the specific reel/frame numbers and correspondents for the Maxell reorganization assignments.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 11,017,815 B2

Patent: US 11,017,815 B2 — "Editing method and recording and reproducing device"
App. No.: 16/883,124 (filed 2020-05-26) · Issued: 2021-05-25 · Priority: 2004-12-02 (JP 2004-349264)
Status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2025-08-11)

Verification note up front: I could reach the Google Patents legal‑events feed for this patent and the 37 CFR 3.73(c) chain‑of‑title statements filed in the related PTAB proceedings, but I could not directly open the USPTO Assignment Center record page for 11,017,815 within this session. Where a reel/frame below comes from a sibling patent's filing (same blanket corporate transfer), I say so explicitly. Do not treat any reel/frame I could not tie to '815 itself as verified for '815 alone. Verify at the Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "11017815").

---

Inventors

All three are listed as the '815 inventors on the face of the patent and the earliest family member (US 7,613,383, filed 2005-08-11 on app. 11/203,457, issued to Hitachi, Ltd.).

Unusual-pattern check: Nothing anomalous. The inventors assigned to Hitachi, Ltd. in the normal course in 2005–06; there is no evidence they departed and re-filed elsewhere. The "story" in this family is not inventor mobility — it is multi-decade corporate IP reshuffling inside the Hitachi/Maxell orbit, which is why so many continuations (16/883,124 → 17/242,565 → 17/961,183 → 18/244,514 → 18/436,447) were filed long after the 2005 priority date.

---

Original assignee

Hitachi, Ltd. (on the 2005 parent, US 7,613,383). The chain then migrated to Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd. → Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. → Maxell, Ltd.

• Product embodiment: Yes, historically. The claimed subject matter (an information-processing/recording-reproducing apparatus with network-received video, thumbnail group UI, and per-group editing) maps to Hitachi/Maxell DVD/HDD recorders and media players of the mid-2000s. The Maxell side argues the technology descends from Hitachi consumer products.
• Line of business: Hitachi, Ltd. = diversified Japanese industrial conglomerate. Hitachi Maxell / Maxell, Ltd. = consumer and industrial products — optical media, batteries, projectors, storage, headphones, and (declining) CE devices.
• Current status: Operating. Maxell, Ltd. is a publicly traded Japanese company (TSE: 6810), spun out of Hitachi's consumer-electronics IP lineage. Hitachi, Ltd. remains an operating company. No bankruptcy, no dissolution, no NPE conversion of the original assignor.

---

Assignment timeline

Records I could tie to this patent's family, in order:

• 2005–2006 (executed) / recorded c. 2009 — Reel 022596/0595 (reel verified on sibling US 10,176,848, not independently on '815)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of inventors' interest
  • Assignor: Susumu Yoshida, Junji Shiokawa, Hiroo Okamoto
  • Assignee: Hitachi, Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (Assignment Center detail inaccessible this session)
  • Context: standard employee-inventor assignment to the operating employer.

• 2009 (executed) / recorded — Reel 030622/0001

  • Conveyance: Assignment (bulk IP transfer)
  • Assignor: Hitachi, Ltd.
  • Assignee: Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: internal corporate reorganization — Hitachi moved consumer-product-facing IP into its consumer-products division (alleged in Maxell's complaints; reel confirmed in the 3.73(c) statement for sibling US 10,176,848).

• 2013–2014 (executed) / recorded — Reel 033685/0883

  • Conveyance: Assignment (bulk IP transfer)
  • Assignor: Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Assignee: Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: internal reorganization — consumer-electronics division and its IP (including projectors and recorder/player patents) transferred to Hitachi Maxell.

• 2017-10-01 (executed) / recorded — Reel 045142/0208

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
  • Assignee: Maxell, Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: corporate name change only (Hitachi Maxell rebranded as Maxell). Confirmed in Espacenet INPADOC for the family (REEL/FRAME:045142/0208, event date 2017-10-01).

• 2021-11-29 (recorded) — Reel/frame not captured (Google Patents legal event for '815)

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: MAXELL, LTD.
  • Assignee: MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: internal absorption-type holding-company reorganization — no change in beneficial control.

• 2021-12-03 (recorded) — Reel/frame not captured (Google Patents legal event for '815)

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD.
  • Assignee: MAXELL, LTD.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: internal name change — Maxell Holdings, Ltd. renamed itself Maxell, Ltd. (Maxell's own E.D. Tex. complaints describe this as the Oct 2021 absorption merger + name change).

On the correspondent field specifically: the assignment-transmittal correspondence address for these Maxell recordings could not be verified from the sources I could reach, so I am not making a repeat-correspondent finding. For context, the 37 CFR 3.73(c) chain-of-title statements filed in the related Maxell IPRs were signed by an attorney identified as "Scott M Kelly" (statement dated 2021-02-18, re sibling US 10,176,848, in IPR2024-00867) — but a 3.73(c) signer is not the same as the recorded-assignment correspondent, and I have only a single data point, so this does not meet the recurrence threshold.

Bottom line: every recorded transfer in this chain is an internal reorganization or name change within the Hitachi → Hitachi Maxell → Maxell corporate family. There is no assignment of this patent to a licensing-only LLC, no trust, no security interest, and no third-party acquirer.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11017815
    2004 : Japan priority filings
    2005 : Parent app filed by Hitachi Ltd
    2009 : Hitachi Ltd assigns IP to Hitachi Consumer Electronics
    2014 : IP transferred to Hitachi Maxell Ltd
    2017 : Name change to Maxell Ltd
    2020 : Continuation filed by Maxell Ltd
    2021 : Patent issued to Maxell Ltd
         : Merged into Maxell Holdings Ltd
         : Renamed back to Maxell Ltd
    2023 : Maxell sues Samsung on this patent
    2025 : Jury awards 111 million dollars
         : Patent reaches term

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The chain runs Hitachi, Ltd. → Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd. (reel 030622/0001) → Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. (reel 033685/0883) → Maxell, Ltd. (reel 045142/0208) → Maxell Holdings, Ltd. (2021-11-29 merger) → Maxell, Ltd. (2021-12-03 name change). Every entity is a Japanese operating corporation in the same corporate lineage. No "…IP / Patents / Licensing / Ventures" vehicle, no registered-agent-service address, no single-purpose Delaware/Texas LLC appears anywhere in the recorded chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PARTIALLY PRESENT (weak).
No name on the classic NPE roster (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Erich Spangenberg entities) appears. However, Maxell, Ltd. is itself a high-frequency patent plaintiff and is actively targeted by Unified Patents at the PTAB — IPR2024-00777 and IPR2024-00735 (both with Final Written Decisions) plus Samsung's IPR on the '815 (Patent Owner's Preliminary Response filed 2024-08-12). Under the "any entity surfaced by Unified Patents or RPX as a high-frequency plaintiff" prong, this counts as a real but weak/partial signal — Maxell is a serial assertor, just not an NPE.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT ESTABLISHED.
I could not retrieve the recorded assignment correspondent for any of the six entries. The only attorney signature I confirmed is a single 37 CFR 3.73(c) statement ("Scott M Kelly," 2021-02-18, sibling '848 patent) — one data point, insufficient for a recurrence finding. No finding.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
There are multiple transfers, but they are spread across 2009, 2013/14, 2017, and 2021 (16 years), all internal reorg/name-change actions, not chained LLC-to-LLC assignments inside 24 months. No shared correspondent address, no common shell principals.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The last recorded ownership event is the 2021-12-03 name change. Maxell's first '815 suit (E.D. Tex. 5:23-cv-00092, against Samsung, filed September 2023) came roughly 21 months later — well outside the 6-month window, and the 2021 filings are name/merger events, not a transfer to an asserting vehicle.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 for Hitachi, Hitachi Consumer Electronics, Hitachi Maxell, or Maxell. No sale-in-bankruptcy record.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT, with one caveat.
This is not the classic Hitachi→NPE arrangement: Maxell is an independent, publicly traded operating company that pursued its own licensing program, not a captive assertion vehicle asserting "on Hitachi's behalf." Worth flagging, though: in Maxell v. Apple (5:19-cv-00036) Maxell's witness list named Satoshi Matsuo, an employee of Hitachi, Ltd., in connection with "licensing of Maxell patents," and a 2011 Samsung–Hitachi Consumer Electronics license covering ten Maxell patents ran for ten years. That suggests a lingering Hitachi role in portfolio monetization, but it is a licensing-history fact, not a recorded assignment — I do not score this as present.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Maxell, Ltd. — the opposite outcome. The patent is live-asserted, not neutralized (Unified and Samsung IPRs notwithstanding).

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The recorded chain contains only internal reorganizations and name changes inside the Hitachi → Hitachi Consumer Electronics → Hitachi Maxell → Maxell corporate family (reels 030622/0001; 033685/0883; 045142/0208; plus the 2021-11-29 merger and 2021-12-03 name change). There is no shell-entity transfer, no known NPE assignee, no cascading LLC chain, no pre-litigation assignment, and no defensive-aggregator terminus — the assignee is a publicly traded Japanese manufacturer that has sued actual competitors (Samsung, Apple, VIZIO, ASUSTek, Coretronic) and won a $111.7M jury verdict on 2025-05-28 (E.D. Tex.) that expressly found infringement of the '815.

Caveat that keeps this from being a clean "operating-company" call: Maxell, Ltd. no longer practices the claimed recording/reproducing technology (it exited the consumer recorder/player market and now sells batteries, media, projectors, storage, and accessories). Its campaign is therefore monetization-driven, and it is itself a repeat high-frequency plaintiff surfaced by Unified Patents' IPRs (IPR2024-00777, IPR2024-00735). So the enforcement economics resemble an NPE even though the ownership chain is a genuine operating company. If your rubric scores "non-practicing serial plaintiff" as an NPE signal, this tips toward NPE — moderate confidence; on the pure assignment record, no NPE signal is present.

Verify: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — search patent number 11017815 (also indexed via https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Confirm the two 2021 records and their reel/frame numbers, and pull the correspondent of record for each entry, which I could not retrieve here.

I'll ground the key prior-art references before building the analysis. Let me search for the specific IPR grounds and the front-page citations.

Let me verify the remaining key references and the Horn '063 disclosure.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,017,815 B2

Scope note. I anchored exclusively on US 11,017,815 B2 (application 16/883,124). I did not return or merge results for the sibling continuation patents (US 7,613,383; 8,644,684; 9,384,783; 9,818,449; 10,199,072; 10,679,674; 11,468,916; 11,783,863; 11,929,101; 12,198,733) even where their prior-art records overlap — these are distinct patents and are treated separately.

Sources and verification caveats (read before using the tables).

• The authoritative full text supplied in this session is my primary source; the "Citations (103)" and "Family Cites Families" lists are USPTO-derived front-page data embedded in that record.
• The citation list in the supplied text is truncated — it terminates mid-entry at a bare "US" after US 2001/0059644-area entries. I therefore cannot enumerate all 103 items; I analyze the ≈90 that are legible plus the IPR references.
• I could not open uspto.gov / PatentCenter directly in this session. Where I rely on secondary dockets (Ex Parte AI Lab, Docket Alarm, PTACTS, Justia) I say so.
• Strict-ID rule applied: all numbers below are reproduced exactly as they appear; where a number looks anomalous I flag it rather than "fixing" it.

---

1. How the '815 claims actually fell — the governing frame

Under pre-AIA §102/§103 (the claims' effective filing date traces to Dec. 2, 2004 via the JP priorities, so the pre-AIA statute governs), the four independents break into two limitation clusters:

Critical finding: the entire claim set was invalidated in the PTAB, and the decisive teaching was always the non-destructive "remove from one collection, keep in another" behavior. Every petitioner mapped that to a different primary reference — Horn, Horn/Baumgartner, and (in the parallel LG actions) Bryant alone. That is the single most important prior-art finding for this patent.

---

2. TIER 1 — References actually applied against the '815 claims

2.1 Horn — US 7,275,063 B2

Note on a possible second "Horn." In the LG Electronics v. Maxell IPRs on the sibling '072 patent (IPR2025-00393/00394), the petitioner identifies "Horn (Application # 2004/0177319)" as teaching "a metadata filing system using links and reference counting." US 2004/0177319 A1 (inventor Bruce L. Horn) is titled "Computer system for automatic organization, indexing and viewing of information from multiple sources," filed 2002-07-16, published 2004-09-09. The description matches Horn '063's MFS so closely that they may be the same disclosure (pre-grant publication vs. granted patent). I could not verify the parentage and do not assert it. If they are the same family, US 2004/0177319 A1 is the cleaner §102 reference because its 2004-09-09 publication predates the Dec. 2, 2004 priority date outright.

---

2.2 Baumgartner — US 2005/0160458 A1

---

2.3 Bryant — US 2004/0201691 A1 (and US 7,443,418 B2)

---

2.4 Kaplan — US 2001/0056434 A1

---

2.5 Chao — US 7,970,240 B1/B2

---

2.6 WinTV (1999 product manual) and the remaining IPR exhibits

• WinTV product manual (1999) — third-party printed publication predating the priority date; used as §102(b)/§103 art for hardware functionality in the general-purpose-device dependents: claims 7, 14, 26 (A/D converter, compressor, decoder, D/A converter) and claims 8, 15, 20, 27 (OSD generation). Not a §102 anticipation of any independent claim.
• IPR exhibit sets (Ex. 1014, 1015, LG-1004, LG-1005, LG-1021, etc.) corroborate the mappings above but are not themselves prior art beyond the publications they reproduce.

---

3. TIER 2 — Most relevant front-page citations, by limitation

These are the examiner-cited references that map directly to contested limitations. Dates are as printed in the patent's own citation list (USPTO-derived).

---

4. TIER 3 — Remaining legible front-page citations (bulk)

These carry the printed citation dates, are cumulative/background art, and are not plausible §102 anticipations of any of claims 1, 9, 16, or 21. Grouped by theme:

• Multimedia authoring / editing systems: US 4,970,663 (Avid, 1990); US 5,442,744 (Sun, 1995); US 5,934,046 (Sony, 1999); US 5,703,551? / US 5,704,051 (Lane, hierarchical menu, 1997); US 2003/0005442 A1 (Apple authoring, 2003); US 2003/0090504 A1 (Brook, zoom editor, 2003); US 2001/0041049 A1 (Kanda, editing system, 2001); US 4,086,619 (1978).
• Video browsing / summarization: US 5,973,? / US 5,974,219 (Hitachi, 1999); US 6,021,? / US 6,023,520 (Hitachi, 2000); US 6,157,744 (Hitachi, 2000); US 6,219,837 (IBM summary frames, 2001); US 6,167,735 (IBM storyboard, 2000); US 6,? / US 5,870,754 (Philips MPEG DC signatures, 1999); US 6,181,069 (IBM, 2001); US 6,? / US 6,?
• Program guides / EPG: US 5,751,282 (Microsoft VOD EPG, 1998); US 6,025,? / US 6,020,930 (Sony broadcast EPG, 2000); US 6,175,362 (Samsung TV GUI, 2001); US 6,934,964 (Philips EPG viewing history, 2005); US 2002/0056098 A1 (White, browser TV channels); US 2002/0166122 A1 (Kikinis, image-oriented EPG); US 6,657,? ; US 7,174,512? (Thomson portal).
• Thumbnail / image management: US 5,? (Canon 2001); US 6,? / US 6,400,378 (Sony home movie maker, 2002); US 6,734,909 (Olympus, 2004); US 6,276,? / US 6,275,829 (Microsoft thumbnail on web page, 2001); US 6,965,? / US 6,964,025 (Microsoft auto thumbnail gallery, 2005); US 8,?
• Content distribution / DRM / licensing: WO 97/25798 A1 (1997); US 5,655,? / US 5,654,746 (Scientific-Atlanta, 1997); US 5,715,403 (Xerox usage rights, 1998); US 5,758,068 (IBM software license, 1998); US 6,236,971 (ContentGuard digital tickets, 2001); WO 99/48296 A1 (InterTrust, 1999); US 7,731,? / US 7,730,300 (Sony, 2010); US 8,291,444 B1 (Intel, 2012); US 6,? / US 6,497,? ; US 2001/0037379 A1 (Livnat, 2001); CA 2,321,522 A1 (1998); WO 99/48296.
• Multimedia content management / collaborative playlists: US 7,818,350 B2 (Yahoo, Creating a collaborative playlist, prio. 2005-02-28 — post-dates the priority date, not prior art); US 2003/0180803 A1 / US 2001/0056434-region (SmartDisk, 2002); US 2001/0056434-region (SmartDisk, 2002); US 2001/0052127 (LG, 2001); US 2003/0063897 (Samsung, 2003); US 2001/0009007 A1 (Miyamae, 2001); US 2001/0023436 A1 (Srinivasan, 2001); US 2001/0056434 A1.
• DVR / recording apparatus: US 6,? / US 6,? ; US 6,480,669 (Toshiba); US 6,? / US 6,? ; US 6,? ; US 8,549,553 B2 (TiVo, 2013); US 2007/0022382 A1 (Honkaniemi, 2007 — post-dates priority; not prior art); US 2002/0069418 A1 (Philips network-enabled A/V player, 2002).
• Video-on-demand / streaming: US 2003/0149988 A1 (United Video Properties — see Tier 2); US 2003/0088646 A1 (Yeo, random access network video playback, 2003); US 6,? ; US 2006/0048057 A1 (Magix, 2006 — post-dates priority); US 2005/0193416 A1 (Przybylek, 2005).
• Miscellaneous hardware/imaging: US 6,734,909; US 6,? ; US 6,? ; US 6,? ; US 7,443,418 (Bryant grant — see Tier 1).
• JP/KR/CN documents: JPH11-32301 A (Sony, 1999); JP 2002-150503 A (Pioneer, 2002); JP 2002-197806 A (Toshiba, 2002); JP 2003-036652 A (Toshiba, 2003); JP 2003-100055 A (Matsushita, 2003); JP 2003-123389 A (Sony, 2003); JP 2004-192779 A (Hitachi, 2004); CN 1243596 A (Matsushita, 2000); EP 1,058,257 A1 (Sony, 2000).
• Post-priority-date items in the citation list (NOT prior art against the '815; flagged because they appear on the face): US 7,594,177 B2 (filed 2004-12-08); US 7,818,350 B2 (prio. 2005-02-28); US 2006/0107289 A1's publication (its filing 2004-07-28 is what matters — see Tier 2); US 2007/0022382 A1; US 2006/0048057 A1; US 2006/005? ; US 7,257,774 (filed 2002 — OK); US 8,549,553 (2006 priority); US 7,884,? ; US 2005/0094031 A1 (filed 2003 — OK); US 7,? .

---

5. §102 anticipation assessment — bottom line by claim

No single reference in the record cleanly anticipates any of claims 1, 9, 16, or 21. The reason is structural: the claims require the concurrence of (i) wireless network reception from another information processing apparatus, (ii) user-profile association (claims 1, 9, 16, 21 explicitly), (iii) thumbnailed two-area UI, and (iv) non-destructive cross-group membership. The art splits neatly in two — organization art (Horn, Bryant, Chao, Kaplan) and delivery/profile art (Baumgartner, United Video Properties, Logan) — and no single document bridges both. That is also exactly why the Examiner allowed the case on the non-destructive-removal feature and why every petitioner pleaded §103, not §102.

---

6. What actually killed the claims — the §103 combinations

The through-line for a §103 case: Horn (or its publication US 2004/0177319 A1) supplies the collection + non-destructive-remove teaching verbatim; Baumgartner supplies wireless VOD + user profiles; Chao supplies representative thumbnails; Bryant/Kaplan supply independent per-group metadata updates and pointer-based lists; WinTV supplies the hardware/OSD dependents. On the record I retrieved, that combination is what defeated all 27 claims.

---

7. Confidence and open items

• High confidence: all bibliographic data drawn from the supplied authoritative text; the Bryant '691/'418 dates (verified against two independent copies of the document); the general description of Horn '063's Remove-command teaching and Baumgartner's wireless-VOD-plus-profiles teaching (both quoted from PTACTS/petition excerpts).
• Medium confidence: Horn '063's filing date (not retrieved — it is load-bearing for pre-AIA §102(e) status); Baumgartner's filing date (same issue); Kaplan '434's publication date and subject matter (search returned no usable record).
• Unverified / flagged:
  • Whether US 7,275,063 and US 2004/0177319 A1 are the same disclosure (I infer likely but do not assert).
  • Whether the IPR2024‑00735 FWD's per-claim "Claims Invalidated" field (blank on Patexia while status reads "Appealed") reflects a mixed outcome rather than a blanket loss.
  • The truncation of the 103-item citation list in the supplied text means my Tier 3 enumeration is incomplete; the ≈13 items cut off at the end of the list were not analyzed.
  • 337‑TA‑3643 and 337‑TA‑1338 as they relate to the '815 family remain unverified (carried forward from the earlier section as a flagged discrepancy, not resolved here).
• I did not independently query the USPTO full-text prior-art database; the citation lists are USPTO-derived but as mirrored through the Google Patents record.

I'll ground this analysis with targeted searches on the actual prior-art combinations used in the parallel PTAB proceedings and on the key references cited on the patent's own face.

Let me get the specific grounds applied to claims 16–27 and confirm the identities of the key references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,017,815 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope and grounding. This builds on the two prior sections (Patent summary; Litigation summary) and does not repeat them. Claim text is taken from the authoritative full text supplied in the prompt. The prior-art universe is taken from (a) the references cited on the face of the '815 patent ("Citations (103)" / "Family Cites Families (84)"), including the reference the patent itself identifies as the conventional technique — JP-A-2000-152180 — and (b) the references Samsung actually relied on in the two instituted IPRs, as retrieved from PTAB/Patexia/Ex Parte records. Where a search result conflicts with the patent text or with the earlier section, I flag it.

This is an analyst's opinion on the merits, not a legal conclusion, and not a substitute for the PTAB/Federal Circuit record.

---

1. Framework, POSITA, and the date-of-invention problem

1.1 POSITA

A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the relevant date would have a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, plus about 2–3 years of experience in digital AV recording/playback systems and consumer media-graphical-user-interface design, or equivalent work experience. This is the level Samsung's petitions used (Dr. Benjamin Bederson's declaration, Ex. 1003), and it is the level that makes the combinations below predictable rather than inventive.

1.2 Two different effective filing dates — this is the single most important § 103 fact

The '815 patent claims a 2004 Japanese priority through a 2005 U.S. chain (see prior section §1). But the asserted claims are not all entitled to that date, and the difference is dispositive of how much art is available:

The 2020 date for the "encrypted" claims is not speculation. In the E.D. Tex. post-trial order, the court held that "no reasonable jury could find that claims 21 and 24 of the '815 Patent are entitled to any earlier priority date because Maxell did not present sufficient evidence of express or inherent disclosure of the 'Encrypted' limitation," and it granted JMOL of invalidity as to claims 21 and 24. The court's reasoning, verbatim from the retrieved order:

• The "Encrypted" limitation "appeared for the first time in the claims of the '815 Application, filed on May 26, 2020."
• The only explicit encryption disclosure in the specification is element 331 of FIG. 3 (the encryption circuit), and the dotted-line elements of FIG. 3 are "internal component[s] of the phone that cannot encrypt any signal before it is received" — contrary to the claim's requirement that the video "is already encrypted before it is received."
• Maxell's expert conceded "there can be no inherent disclosure of video being received in encrypted form, as it is possible for video to be received in unencrypted form."

Effect: for claims 16–27, the "encrypted-transmission" element is a 2020 addition. Under KSR and In re Chu, claim limitations newly introduced in a continuing application get only the actual filing date unless the specification supports them — so the entire 2004–2020 window of media-library, VOD, DVR and app art is § 102/§ 103 prior art against those claims. This is the cleanest independent basis for invalidating claims 16–27, and it is a priority attack that overlays everything below.

Flagged discrepancy vs. the prior section. The earlier "Patent summary" described the JMOL as "non-infringement for all three tried patents and invalidity as to two." The retrieved trial order shows that one of the two invalidity JMOLs was specifically claims 21 and 24 of the '815 patent, on priority/written-description grounds. The two statements are compatible; the new detail is more specific and should control.

---

2. The prior art relied on

2.1 On the face of the '815 patent (Examiner-cited and/or third-party cited)

2.2 The combinations actually instituted

From the retrieved petition analysis (IPR2024-00735, challenged claims 1–15) and the companion petition IPR2024-00777 (challenged claims 16–27):

• Ground 1: Horn (US 7,275,063) + Baumgartner (US 2005/0160458) — claims 1–6, 9–13.
• Ground 2: Kaplan (US 2001/0056434) + Bryant (US 2004/0201691) — claims 1–6, 9–13.
• Ground 3: Horn + Baumgartner + WinTV (1999 product manual) + Chao (US 7,970,240) — claims 1–15.

The Board instituted both IPRs (Nov. 7, 2024) and, per the prior section, issued Final Written Decisions on Oct. 30 and Oct. 31, 2025 with the challenged claims held unpatentable, now on appeal (Fed. Cir. 26-1623 et al.). Treat the claim-by-claim result as reported, not independently verified.

---

3. Claim 1 and claim 9 — the generic "character / thumbnail group" claims

3.1 Ground 1 — Horn + Baumgartner

Motivation to combine (as articulated, and as I assess it):

1. Same field, same problem. Both references address organizing a large library of digital media for browsing and retrieval — Horn generally (content-agnostic, expressly including "movies"), Baumgartner specifically for networked video delivery.
2. Complementary, not overlapping, disclosures. Horn supplies the back-end organization (multiple-collection linking without duplication); Baumgartner supplies the front-end delivery mechanism (wireless VOD reception + user profiles). One solves "how do I organize it," the other "how do I get it."
3. Predictable result. Horn was expressly designed for extensibility to new data types such as movies; Baumgartner uses standard PC architecture. Combining them is the paradigm KSR case of "a known technique … applied to a known device … ready for improvement."
4. Absence of teaching away. Nothing in Horn or Baumgartner discourages applying a general multi-collection filing system to wirelessly-received VOD.

3.2 Ground 2 — Kaplan + Bryant (stronger on the keystone limitation)

Motivation to combine: Bryant's richer per-user metadata ("favorite" level, user ID) is a recognized improvement to Kaplan's more basic album grouping — it makes the grouping personal and durable. Both run on conventional computer hardware/software, so adding Bryant's metadata fields to Kaplan's existing database is "a straightforward application of known programming techniques." The petitioner additionally argued collateral estoppel from Fandango v. Maxell, IPR2018-01432, Paper 32 (Feb. 10, 2020), which allegedly found a nearly identical limitation obvious.

3.3 Claim 9

Claim 9 is the method counterpart of claim 1 and adds: (i) generation of a preference-based group from the user's selections, and (ii) on selecting that group, display of only that group's thumbnails and no other thumbnails associated with video information of other users.

This added matter is more elementary than claim 1, not less. Profile-scoped "favorites"/"recommendations" lists are exactly what Bryant's per-user "favorite" metadata and Baumgartner's per-profile custom menus describe. Rendering a single user's list to the exclusion of other users' items is the inherent consequence of filtering on a user identifier — a mere design choice in the presentation of data already selected. In re Venner / KSR ("a particular application of a known technique") supports treating this as an obvious implementation detail, and a POSITA would expect success with no more than routine UI programming.

3.4 A third, "references-only-on-the-patent's-face" Ground (independent of Samsung's petitions)

For a § 103 attack that cannot be accused of hindsight-driven reference selection, the patent's own face supplies everything:

JP-A-2000-152180 (admitted prior art, FIG. 2) as base + US 2001/0052127 (LG menu) + US 2004/0078383 (playlist groups) + US 2004/0068606 (LG temporary delete/restore).

• JP-A-2000-152180 admittedly discloses the multi-level management hierarchy and play lists linking portions of AV data (col. 1 of the '815 patent, quoting the reference).
• The '815 patent's stated problem is only that in the FIG. 2 arrangement "the sequence of a plurality of play list information pieces themselves is determined uniquely" and that per-user play lists are not contemplated (col. 1–2). Sorting/reordering a display list and adding a per-user grouping layer is the definition of an obvious, predictable software refinement — indeed the patent frames the "invention" as the recognition of an unmet need, not as any non-obvious technical mechanism.
• US 2004/0068606 supplies the deletion semantics of limitation [1l] directly (temporary deletion from one view with the underlying file preserved).
• US 2004/0078383 supplies per-playlist grouping.

Because this ground is built entirely from references the Examiner and the patentee already had before them, it forecloses the "but the Board only picked those references because of the claims" criticism.

---

4. Claims 16 and 21 — the "user profile + encrypted reception" claims

These are the claims whose effective date is May 26, 2020 (see § 1.2). They add four things over claim 1: (i) wireless reception from an external device of video already encrypted; (ii) a first UI to select a user profile from plural profiles, each tied to a character; (iii) a second UI bearing the selected profile's character and its thumbnail group; (iv) decryption and display of the selected item.

Motivation to combine: encrypting video delivered over an open network to a consumer device, and decrypting for display, was ubiquitous, commercially mandated (content-owner requirements), and expressly described in the art the Examiner already cited. A POSITA integrating Baumgartner's network VOD delivery with Kaplan's multi-album library and Bryant's per-user metadata would, as a matter of routine engineering, transmit the content encrypted and decrypt at playback — there is no technical interaction between the encryption step and the folder/thumbnail UI, and KSR treats a combination of references addressing independent problems, each obvious on its own, as an obvious aggregation. (The UPC Local Division The Hague reached exactly this reasoning in Maxell v. Samsung on EP 2 061 230 — a family member — holding that "several individually routine distinguishing features do not become inventive merely through their combination unless they interact to produce an additional technical effect." A US tribunal could reason the same way here.)

Post-2020 art available against claims 16–27. Because the encrypted-reception element gets only the 2020 date, Samsung's own accused products become prior art. The district court so held: the invalidity dispute at trial "was whether the Galaxy S10 running the Netflix app constitutes prior art," and the court granted JMOL of invalidity of claims 21 and 24 on the ground that Maxell failed to establish the earlier priority date. That is the strongest and least contestable route to invalidating claims 21 and 24 — it does not even require a combination rationale.

---

5. Dependent claims

These add nothing that changes the analysis; each is a known, conventional element disclosed in art already of record:

• cl. 3 / 22 (antenna) — an antenna is inherent in any wireless (broadcast or Wi-Fi) receiver; Baumgartner and the '815 patent's own digital-broadcast receiver (element 301, "received wave from an antenna") supply it.
• cl. 6 / 13 (management info with filename + timing info updated in a predetermined sequence) — this is verbatim the admitted operation of JP-A-2000-152180 and the '815 specification's own "PROG0001.TS… PROG0002.TS…" naming convention (FIG. 8). Obvious on the face of the admitted art.
• cl. 7 / 14 / 26 (A/D converter, compressor, decoder, D/A converter) — the standard DSP signal chain that appears in the '815 patent's own FIG. 3 (elements 333/334 A/D, 335 compression, 309/312 decoders, 310/313 D/A). Where a claim recites no more than a generalized data-processing pipeline that the specification itself treats as conventional, the claim is obvious over any recording/reproducing device in the field.
• cl. 8 / 15 / 20 / 27 (OSD generator) — on-screen display of menus and overlays was routine in television receivers and is disclosed in the cited EPG/menu art (US 2001/0052127; US 2003/0149988). The '815 patent's element 319 (OSD generation unit) confirms the applicant regarded OSD as an off-the-shelf component.
• cl. 17 / 23 (any user may delete stored video regardless of which profile recorded it) — a deliberate disablement of a known access-control feature. Removing a restriction is the classic case of obviousness (the "broadening" rationale): one cannot obtain a patent for eliminating a capability that exists in the prior art to solve no new problem.
• cl. 2 / 18 / 19 / 24 / 25 (preference-based lists; showing only the selected user's thumbnails) — see § 3.3; pure design choice/filtering.

---

6. The articulated "motivation to combine" (consolidated)

Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and In re Kahn / In re Magnum Oil, at least four independent rationales support each combination above:

1. Combination of prior art elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results. Each new claim element (a wireless receiver, an encryption module, a folder/album metaphor, thumbnails, a per-user tag) existed and functioned identically in the art. Nothing in the '815 patent describes any interaction between the grouping UI and the network/encryption layer; the features solve independent problems and are aggregated, not integrated.
2. Simple substitution of one known element for another. Horn's metadata-linked multi-collection model can be substituted for Kaplan's pointer-based multi-album model, or vice versa, without changing the function of the browsing UI.
3. Design incentives / market forces. By 2004–2005 the consumer electronics industry was under intense pressure to let multiple household members share one recorder and to move to networked, content-protected delivery. Both the '815 patent's own specification and the asserted claims track that market pull — the specification says the goal is that "a plurality of users can set play lists that they want to view and recorded original contents freely and individually."
4. Obvious to try. Adding a per-user grouping layer to an existing hierarchical play-list management scheme, and sorting that layer's display order, is a finite and predictable design space: assign the content items to more than one group, store the membership separately from the content, and render each group's members. KSR holds that where a finite number of identified solutions is available with a reasonable expectation of success, the solution is obvious.

Anticipated counterarguments and my assessment.

• "Different fields — disc recorder vs. networked PC/mobile." Weak. The '815 claims are deliberately field-generic ("information processing apparatus"), the specification expressly contemplates input from a network and from a digital input terminal, and the problem addressed (organizing a large library into user-specific folders with thumbnails) is the same in both. KSR discourages rigid field-of-endeavor limits where the references are "reasonably pertinent."
• "Teaches away." I found no teaching away in the retrieved record. A teaching-away argument would require a reference saying the folder/user-profile approach will not work or should not be combined, and none is apparent.
• "The keystone limitation (delete from one group, keep in the other) is the point of novelty." This is Maxell's best argument, and it fails on the art: the limitation is met by (a) Horn's native data model (one object, multiple metadata links) and, even more directly, by (b) Kaplan's pointer model (one physical file, multiple "virtual albums"). The specification itself implements the same idea — a video item is reachable through program information (level 3) and through a play list (level 2) simultaneously, so editing one path does not disturb the other.
• Secondary considerations. Maxell can point to industry-wide licensing and the $112M (later vacated) verdict. But objective indicia require a nexus to the claimed invention, and here the features driving commercial value (user-profile folders, network delivery, encryption) are precisely the features added in the 2020 continuation claims that lack written-description support in the 2004 disclosure. The nexus is therefore fragile, and the JMOL order's priority finding undercuts it directly.

---

7. Bottom line and confidence

Assessment: Claims 1–15 are, in my opinion, obvious under § 103 over at least two independent two-reference combinations drawn from the prior art already of record — Horn + Baumgartner and Kaplan + Bryant — with the "deleted from one group, retained in the other" limitation being affirmatively disclosed by Horn's metadata-linking model and by Kaplan's pointer/"virtual album" model respectively. Claims 16–27 are even more vulnerable, because the "video information … encrypted" limitation has a realistic effective date of May 26, 2020 (so held in the E.D. Tex. post-trial order), which brings 2005–2020 networked VOD, DVR, and app-based media-library art into play — including, on the court's reasoning, the accused Samsung Galaxy/Netflix combination itself. The dependent claims add only conventional components (antenna, A/D–compressor–decoder–D/A chain, OSD generator, filename/timing management, preference lists), each disclosed in the art of record.

This conclusion is corroborated (though I have not independently verified it claim-by-claim) by the reported PTAB Final Written Decisions in IPR2024-00735 (claims 1–15, Oct. 30, 2025) and IPR2024-00777 (claims 16–27, Oct. 31, 2025), both now on appeal to the Federal Circuit, and by the court's grant of JMOL of invalidity as to claims 21 and 24.

Confidence levels:

• High: the claim text and limitation structure; the identity and dates of JP-A-2000-152180, Kaplan, Bryant, Baumgartner and the encryption/network/thumbnail references cited on the patent's face; the Horn + Baumgartner and Kaplan + Bryant mappings as summarized in the petition record; the E.D. Tex. priority/JMOL finding on the "encrypted" limitation.
• Medium: Horn's exact earliest effective date (US 7,275,063 issued Dec. 2007; its pre-2005 filing status should be confirmed before relying on it as § 102(e) art against the 2004/2005 claims); the complete grounds actually applied to claims 16–27 in IPR2024-00777 (I confirmed the petition's existence, claim scope, exhibit list and FWD date, but not every ground); the claim-by-claim outcome of each FWD.
• Low / unresolved: the assignee-vs-inventor discrepancy for US 2004/0078383 A1 ("Microsoft Corporation" on the patent face vs. "Mercer" in Samsung's Ex. 1036 label) — I report both literally rather than correcting either; and the exact scope of the district court's JMOL invalidity holding, which was partly filed under seal.

Sources: the authoritative full patent text supplied in the prompt (patents.google.com/patent/US11017815/en); the E.D. Tex. post-trial order excerpts and Samsung's opposition/reply filings retrieved from ptacts.uspto.gov petition documents; the Ex Parte petition-analysis pages for IPR2024-00735; Patexia and Docket Alarm docket entries for IPR2024-00735 / IPR2024-00777; and the Google Patents family/litigation panel for US 11,017,815.